Fort Myers injury lawyer

Published on: July 1, 2020

Pain and Suffering Damages Awarded in Fort Myers Injury Lawsuit

A Fort Myers injury lawsuit resulted in a jury verdict of more than $5 million in damages, which included $2.25 million for past and future pain and suffering a few years back.

The Daily Business Review reported that in 2017, a driver in Fort Myers was reportedly high on heroin when he crashed into the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff and her two children, who were in the backseat, were seriously injured. Initially, the other driver was arrested for driving under the influence, but he later pleaded guilty to lesser charges. His auto insurance company agreed to cover the cost of the children’s injuries but argued their mother’s injuries were mostly the result of a pre-existing condition. She filed a Fort Myers injury lawsuit. The defense conceded liability, but the plaintiff still had to prove the full extent of her damages – which included pain and suffering.

Here our South Florida injury attorneys explain what pain and suffering are in the context of tort law and what legal recourse you have to be compensated for it.

Published on: March 17, 2020

4th DCA: Florida Business Can Be Liable for On-Premises Attack

by Leland Garvin

Fort Myers injury lawyer Florida property owners owe a duty of care to protect invitees from third-party criminal attacks – where the assault was reasonably foreseeable. This principle was affirmed recently by the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s reversal of summary judgment favoring a Florida business owner accused of negligence in an injury lawsuit.

As our South Florida injury lawyers can explain, key issues in these types of premises liability cases are:

Reasonable foreseeability of the attack.
Duty of care the property owner owed to the plaintiff (designation of invitee, licensee or trespasser, depending on the plaintiff’s purposes on-site). Age and special relationships can also be factors.
Whether the defendant property owner’s actions proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

The defendant in Bryan v. Galley Maid Marine Products, Inc. argued it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, who was on-site drinking with the owner and three others when he was attacked, twice. He suffered a broken neck, nerve damage, and facial fractures. The defense asserted there was no way the property owner could have reasonably foreseen what would happen because it occurred suddenly and without provocation. Furthermore, the defendant argued the victim was a licensee rather than an invitee, meaning the only duty business owner owed was to refrain from wanton negligence, willful misconduct or intentional exposure to danger.

The court noted there were seventeen (17) minutes between the first attack, which left the plaintiff unconscious and with missing teeth, and the second attack, which resulted in another bout of unconsciousness and even more serious injuries. No one called 911, according to court records, because those present were reportedly afraid of the assailant (who was later arrested, convicted and sentenced to prison). Continue reading

Published on: October 23, 2019

Why Does a Florida Injury Lawyer Work on a Contingency Fee Basis?

by Leland Garvin

One of the top concerns an injury lawyer hears upon meeting with prospective clients is: How much will this cost me?

Most who have suffered a serious personal injury are hurting financially as well as physically – which is why they’re seeking compensation from the at-fault party in the first place. Fort Myers injury lawyer

The good news is that with personal injury litigation, you won’t need to pay upfront. In fact, you won’t pay any attorney fees at all unless you win.

Published on: October 19, 2018

Florida Supreme Court Rejects Daubert Expert Standard, Returns to Frye

by Leland Garvin

UPDATE: Since this writing, the Florida Supreme Court has done an about-face, deciding the more rigorous Daubert analysis will in fact be the new evidentiary standard in Florida cases, both civil and criminal. This will mean the bar to bring – and prevail – in Florida injury lawsuits is raised. In its May 23, 2019 decision In re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107, the court (now with three new governor-appointed justices since the last ruling) held Florida’s evidence standard should align with that used by federal courts and most other states. The court previously rejected adoption of Daubert following a 2013 legislative amendment, citing procedural issues and “grave constitutional concerns.” In this 5-2 ruling, the court now says those concerns are unfounded.

On October 15, 2018, the Florida Supreme Court, settled the long-running debate about the appropriate admissibility standard for expert opinions thought Florida state courts. In a case that began with a plaintiff who developed mesothelioma after years of exposure to asbestos, the Florida Supreme Court held that Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test.

Florida-supreme-court-1-300x157
A sharply divided Florida Supreme Court on Monday said a controversial 2013 law about expert-witness testimony was an unconstitutional infringement on the court’s authority.